Thursday, March 08, 2018

Aussie PM's son voiced concerns over burial of Mongolian models

FMT - Goldman not happy ‘cos I questioned 1MDB deals, says Turnbull’s son (extracts):

KUALA LUMPUR: Alex Turnbull, the son of Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, has claimed he was sidelined at Goldman Sachs after he raised questions about deals involving 1MDB.
“Whistleblowing is a shit business,” he told The Australian in recounting what happened to him.

According to the report, in 2012 and 2013, Alex was working in Singapore at Goldman Sachs when the organisation raised bonds for 1MDB worth US$6 billion. Alex, however, was not involved in the transactions.

The Australian said the 1MDB deals, organised by senior banker Tim Leissner, were extremely lucrative for Goldman Sachs, reaping it almost US$590 million in fees and commissions. Leissner, who resigned in February 2016, was later banned by Singapore from the securities industry for ten years over the transactions.

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) alleges that US$2.62 billion of the bond proceeds were pillaged by Malaysian elites and is continuing a probe into the case. Its latest action was to seize, with the help of Indonesia, a luxury yacht, The Equanimity, said to belong to Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, who, the DoJ says, is the mastermind behind the affair.

Alex told The Australian he raised concerns with colleagues about the high price and the lack of clarity in offer documents about the use of the funds.

He said when the 1MDB deal was done with Goldman, he sent an email to some of his colleagues asking what was going on. “The pricing is nuts, what is the use of funds?” he had asked.

For doing so, he claimed, he received a “talking-to” by the firm’s compliance officials. He said he was “B-tracked” as a result. He worked for Goldman Sachs’ special situations division from 2010 to 2014, when he resigned to start his own Singapore-based hedge fund, Keshik Capital.

It so happened I read this article this morning in The Australian. The hardcopy version was far far more comprehensive than the FMT report which is taken from an afternoon version of The Australian which by then had edited or pared off most of the morning news article.

Initially, in the morning when I first read it, I was impressed by Alex Turnbull's revelation of the money involved, but he kind of disappointed me when he also raised an unrelated to-1MDB news, that of the murder of Altantuyaa in a manner I had read as somewhat of an emotional outburst, words to the effect that: How many Mongolian models did we have to bury in the jungle for this pricing?.

I can't remember the exact details but I wonder WTF has the murder of Altanatuyaa Shaariibuu had to do with 1MDB?

If I may ask specifically, how would, in the amazing words of Alex Turnbull, "How many Mongolian models did we have to bury in the jungle for this pricing?" of whatever, but presumably 1MDB.

The Australia is accessed by paid subscription to access contents only available to its hardcopy edition, which alas, I do not have (though I read it in a library this morning.

The little I could glean from the Net was this:

In raising his concerns at Goldman Sachs, Alex Turnbull also made reference to the 2006 murder of Mongolian model and translator Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa, who was reportedly the lover of Najib supporter Abdul Razak Baginda. Mr Abdul Razak was acquitted of the murder ...

Fortunately, after a wee search to confirm what I read this morning, I discovered that good old Malaysiakini also carry a similar report but with more info than FMT:

In raising his concerns at Goldman Sachs, The Australian also quoted Turnbull as having made reference to the 2006 murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was killed in a patch of jungle near Shah Alam.
"How many Mongolian models did we have to bury in the jungle for this pricing?" he said.

What pricing? 1MDB? What relationship would there be in the murder of Altantuiyaa and 1MDB?

Earlier, The Australian in its report also highlighted:

... that Turnbull’s claims came as Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is preparing to face the 14th general election and could undermine efforts by Canberra to shore up relations with Malaysia, regarded as a key ally in its battle against terrorism.

It's quite amazing on the following points:

(a) he didn't say anything for at least 5 years (since 2013) until Malaysia is about to go to an election. Why? Hmmm.

(b) he was NOT involved in the 1MDB transactions in 2012-2013, yet he saw fit to send a kay-poh-chnee email, as he claimed, to some of his colleagues asking what was going on, with words to the effect, “The pricing is nuts, what is the use of funds?” thus neglecting a bankers intrinsic quality and character to maintain clients confidentiality. And that was why, again as he claimed, he received a “talking-to” by the firm’s compliance officials

Bankers like him and his PM-father don't do that sort of gross indiscretions.

(c) I wonder what he meant by "How many Mongolian models did we have to bury in the jungle for this pricing?" and why he again saw fit to bring in a totally unrelated issue to Goldman Sachs banking or the 1MDB issue?

(d) Tomorrow I will re-checked with the library on another issue wakakaka on why he was not looked upon favourably by the bank, but we'll just have to wait until then as my memory is not all that good, wakakaka again.

But to cap it off, I wonder at his TIMING in revealing this tidbit NOW (5 years after it supposedly happened) just when Malaysia is going to an election and ...

... his unnecessary reference to an unrelated matter to 1MDB, to wit, his exclamation of "How many Mongolian models did we have to bury in the jungle for this pricing?".

Yes indeed, we need to look more into the amazing actions of Alex Turnbull.

with his PM-dad 


  1. i think he found out some msian r very interested towards event that happenned long time ago, for eg this blog talk abt cases 30 years back non stop. thats y.

  2. As the last 4 letters of his name suggests: Full of Bull!

  3. 1st, is this piece a defence for pinklips or a query on the ethic of investigative journalism?

    2nd, why question about the intention of Alex when u should target the journalistic professionalism of The Australian?

    3rd The 'worthiness' of an investigative news, especially a highly controversial one, falls on The Australian. Yet, u keep attacking Alex, why?

    4) U seem to imply that Alex has an udand-di-belakang-batu. Is he been 'bought' over by the opposition vis-a-vis Clare's Sarawak Report exposé as claimed by yr sifu, the mom?

    5) Do u have any proofs to justify yr questioning of Alexis disclosures?

    Questions ain't no proofs lah. It's more of alternate suspicions, opposite to Alex disclosures - different side of the coin. Right?

    Wakakakaka……… there r so many loopholes, In really tire of digging further.

    Maybe more after yr next explosive follow up on this piece of impulsive & unprofessional…………

    1. I am shocked you didn't ask me for a thesis of PhD standards,w wakakaka - seems as if you are now going easy on me

      as to your challenge "Do u have any proofs to justify yr questioning of Alexis disclosures?" I would have gone to the police if I have any proof.

    2. THEN, get pinklips to sue the pants of The Australian, with Alex Turnbull as sweetener lah!

      BTW, The Australian is not yr daily mirror or kosmo type of paper spread.

      Pinklips might be about to claim a fortune for been slandered!

      Wakakakaka …?…… so eagers & impulsive to defense yr idol!

      I don't think The Australian is easy meat. Neither would I of young Turnbull.

    3. Oooop.....Forget to add, fitnah needs no PhD, just kangaroo poos.

      But, as a friction writer (bad boy, no wordsmith accolade) at least doesn't sink to the same level as that infamous mom lah.

      At least a carpetbagger knows his decency tolerance lah.

      Mana minimum standard in yr writing le?

  4. Ktemoc being true to form....
    Viciously attacking anyone who highlights their concern on 1MDB...



    1. I tell it as it has been reported. Any ambiguities or incongruities I point those out,

      Any problem, or should I have cover them (incongruities and ambiguities) up?

    2. No cover-up!

      But in yr eagerness (I sincerely hope so) in asking those questions, u project a very STRONG impression of trying to shield pinklips!

      Alex might not be a credible source BUT The Australian, been a reputed newspaper, should have double checked his story before published it.

      I'm confident that The Australian has done just that.

      Moreover, u SHOULD have target The Australian, instead of Alex, for the story. Perhaps, u know u can't do that to The Australian but Alex could be an easy barbecued oz beef!

    3. Ini Ktemoc....fuyoh, macam monyet kena belacan...jumping up and down shrieking all over the place just coz his Tai Koh was being linked or insinuated to murder and grand corruption, hehehe. In this instance, he has even outdone those DUmno bunch....

  5. The father, Australian PM , is meeting Pink Lips next week...